Police Department Overtime Follow-Up Audit - May 2007 Internal Audit Division Office of the City Manager City of Cincinnati Mark T. Ashworth ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Police Department Overtime Follow-Up Audit May 2007 Internal Audit Division Office of the City Manager City of Cincinnati Mark T. Ashworth Internal Audit Manager Lauren Sundararajan Lead Internal Auditor
I. Introduction
The Internal Audit Division (IAD) conducted a follow-up audit of the Police Department
Overtime Audit issued April 2005. It is IAD policy to conduct a follow-up audit to
ensure recommendations are being implemented.
Our review showed that the Cincinnati Police Department (CPD) has successfully
implemented the following IAD recommendations:
• Revising their policies and procedures manual to reflect current practices.
• Developing new management reports to better manage overtime.
• Tracking off-duty on a new automated system.
• Conducting semi-annual audits of overtime.
Audit Scope and Methodology
The 2005 Police Department Overtime Audit had the following objectives:
• To verify proper controls are in place to record, manage, and analyze overtime.
• To ensure that the timekeeping system in place is adequate.
• To determine how outside employment and off-duty details effect CPD overtime.
The follow-up audit reviewed the 2005 audit recommendations to determine the status of
these recommendations and ensure CPD was in compliance.
The initial audit and this subsequent follow-up were conducted in accordance with
Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS).
II. Status of Recommendations
Fiscal and Budgetary Management
Finding 1: CPD overtime spending has grown 7.1% per year since 1997, making
overtime an increasingly larger part of the department’s budget. Overtime spending is
now 7.4% of the department’s total spending, higher than the national average of 6%.
Recommendation 1: CPD should implement measures directed at managing and
controlling overtime costs. CPD should strive to meet 6% as a benchmark or other
approved standard for department-wide overtime spending, this includes comp time
liability created by overtime use.
CPD Response: When comparing overtime to the total police budget, the Cincinnati
Police Department compares favorably with other police agencies in the region.
1The Cincinnati Police surveyed six cities in this region (Louisville, Columbus, Toledo,
Indianapolis, Dayton, and Cleveland) to determine what percentage of their police
departments’ total budget overtime represented.
In 2004, overtime for the six police departments ranged from 2% to 5.45% of their total
budget, which includes personnel, equipment, supplies, services, and fringe benefits.
Overtime for the Cincinnati Police Department represented 5.47% of the Department’s
total budget. In 2003, the range for the six departments was 2.5% to 8% and Cincinnati’s
percentage for overtime compared to total budget was 5.16%. Factors which affect these
numbers include contract provisions, criteria for earning and paying overtime, court
attendance compensation provisions, police officer salary, and sworn complement. The
survey shows the Cincinnati Police Department is within the range of other Departments
in the region and consistent with the 1998 NIJ finding that overtime represents less than
6% of the total budget of police departments.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: The percentage of the total budget was
5.96% in 2005 and 5.95% in 2006, which is below the IAD recommendation of a 6%
benchmark. Further, Procedure 12.825, Compensatory Time and Paid Overtime, has
been revised and describes in detail how to obtain proper approval for working overtime.
In addition, the Inspections Section conducts a semi-annual overtime and court overtime
audit. IAD obtained copies of the audits and is satisfied with the results.
Finding 2: CPD has routinely exceeded its overtime budget by more than 50% for the
last four years.
Recommendation 2: CPD should use its budget as a fiscal management tool. It should
budget realistically based on quantified need and service requirements with consideration
of 6% as a national average or other approved standard. CPD should address Budget and
Evaluation’s concerns about controlling overtime spending.
CPD Response: The Police Department has controls in place to reasonably and
realistically control overtime. The Police Department has, for several years running,
covered all expenses during its fiscal year and has consistently ended each year within
1% of its allocated budget. In 2004, the Police Department paid overtime in the
following categories:
2Court Compensation $2,695,599
(includes court, FLSA, and off day/dead time categories)
Police Visibility Overtime $ 500,000
(Council mandated)
Non-reimbursed Events $ 351,701
(Council mandated)
Non-Sworn Holiday $ 193,069
(Collective Bargaining Agreement)
Canine Handler Compensation $ 59,173
(Collective Bargaining Agreement)
Field Training Officer Pay $ 154,054
(Collective Bargaining Agreement)
These overtime expenditures total $3,953,596, which is greater than the Department’s
allocated overtime budget for 2005. Allocated 2005 overtime budget: $3,883,790.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: CPD is now identifying the line item for
overtime more accurately. According to Ella Topham, Director of the Finance
Management Section, the 2007 overtime budget is approximately $1 million closer to
their request. In prior years, overtime was budgeted at $3 million less than what CPD
actually needed.
Finding 3: The CPD timekeeping system does not reflect actual overtime spending from
the general fund and has been reconciled with CFS only once due to inquiries from
Budget and Evaluation and the Internal Audit Division.
Recommendation 3: CPD should reconcile its timekeeping system to CFS on a
quarterly basis. CPD should also adopt standard accounting practices that close the
books on a certain date every year and recognize revenue in the time period it is received.
CPD Response: The Police Department will meet with the Finance Department and
work in partnership to design a process to regularly reconcile their respective automated
systems so that accurate reporting and effective forecasting can be achieved.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: The Finance Management Section of CPD
met with Accounts and Audits and developed a second object code (7122); CPD can now
access CFS and see the amount spent versus the budgeted amount. CPD reports
overtime cost based on when the overtime is worked; whereas, CFS reports overtime cost
based on when overtime is paid. The new object code allows the two systems to be
reconciled. According to Ms. Topham, Director of the Finance Management Section,
CPD is completing reconciliations each pay period. The reconciliation report is
forwarded to Accounts and Audits twice a year. IAD reviewed the Police Overtime
Reconciliation report and is satisfied the reconciliation has resolved the issue.
Finding 4: The CPD timekeeping system was the source of inaccurate information
presented to the Law and Public Safety Committee regarding overtime spending.
3Recommendation 4: CPD should report overtime spending figures to the Mayor and
City Council based on CFS data since it represents actual spending from the general fund,
rather than from the department’s own tracking system.
CPD Response: The Police Department’s timekeeping system was not the source of an
error which caused inaccurate information to be reported to the Law and Public Safety
Committee. The error was the result of a simple subtraction error made when a chart was
created. Reimbursable overtime costs were subtracted twice from the overtime total.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: The new object code (7122) stated in
audit follow-up recommendation #3 has enabled CPD’s Finance Section to reconcile
their internal system to the CFS system. This is performed each pay period and shared
with Accounts and Audits on a semi-annual basis. IAD concurs with this action.
Supervision, Management, and Analysis of Overtime Use
Finding 5: In our sample analysis, nearly two-thirds of CPD Form 68P authorizing
overtime use were not being filled out in full compliance with CPD Procedure 12.825.
Recommendation 5: CPD should fully enforce CPD Procedure 12.825.
CPD Response: The Police Department will revise its procedure so that it is consistent
with operational practices while maintaining the necessary overtime approval
requirement. The Department will conduct an audit in 2005 to insure overtime is
necessary and justified as required by procedure.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: Procedure 12.825 has been revised. The
revision describes in detail how to obtain proper approval for working overtime. In
addition, the Inspections Section conducts semi-annual audits on both overtime and court
overtime. IAD obtained copies of the audits and is satisfied with the results.
Finding 6: District Commanders are not provided with realistic overtime budget
information in a timely manner.
Recommendation 6: District Commanders should be provided with a realistic overtime
budget at the beginning of the year. They should also receive the quarterly reports
detailing spending in each district for all types of overtime and a comparison to the prior
year.
CPD Response: The Police Department will create two reports in order to provide
important and timely budget information to all Commanders:
• Monthly Overtime Report: report of overtime expenditures by District/Section
• Quarterly Budget Status Report: report of all expenditures, including personnel
costs, overtime costs, and non-personnel costs.
4These reports will be used to identify significant cost drivers and areas of concern and
will be used in conjunction with police workload and staffing data to insure optimal
effectiveness and efficiency.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: Ella Topham, Director of the Finance
Management Section, meets with the Police Chief and the Assistant Chiefs on a monthly
basis to discuss Police overtime. Ms. Topham distributes various overtime reports for
review during the meeting. The Monthly Overtime Report compares overtime costs to the
budget, the Budget Status Report identifies all CPD general fund expenditures year- to-
date, including personnel costs, overtime costs, and non-personnel costs. In addition, the
Field Commanders receive the Bi-Weekly Overtime Report, which breaks down overtime
further by indicating the reasons for overtime for the current pay period as well as year-
to-date. IAD obtained these reports and is satisfied these reports contain the required
relevant information.
Finding 7: Scheduling of Neighborhood Officers is one example of how District
Commanders could better manage overtime.
Recommendation 7: District Commanders should review types of overtime in their
district to identify opportunities to minimize overtime costs where allowed by contract.
CPD Response: District Commanders will review Neighborhood Officer scheduling to
insure Neighborhood Officers are deployed in a manner consistent with their mission,
Department and community needs, and efficiency.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: Community Officers were merged into
regular patrol shifts during a recent departmental reorganization with the intent that on-
duty officers should attend neighborhood meetings. District Commanders now review the
Bi-Weekly Overtime report. IAD is satisfied that the information contained in this report
provides CPD an additional method to supervise overtime usage.
Finding 8: Senior command staff lacks the tools recommended as best practice for the
supervision, analysis, and management of overtime.
Recommendation 8: The Fiscal Section should produce reports for the Command Staff
analyzing overtime use, trends over time, and relation to service delivery indicators that
CPD deems to be relevant. In its model overtime policy, the International Association of
Chiefs of Police recommends that departments track overtime expenditures by function
and review individual and summary data on a monthly basis. It also advocates analyzing
overtime routinely for cost effectiveness. The department could easily produce reports
that indicate change in overtime spending within different units over time. It could also
compare districts’ use of overtime to their overall workload.
CPD Response: The Police Department has already initiated improvements associated
with this finding. The Department is reporting overtime-used data in the Department’s
monthly Executive Information Summary for use by Commanders, managers, and
supervisors.
5The Police Department will create two reports in order to provide important and timely
budget information to all Commanders:
• Monthly Overtime Report: report of overtime expenditures by District/Section.
• Quarterly Budget Status Report: report of all expenditures, including personnel
costs, overtime costs, and non-personnel costs.
These reports will be used to identify significant cost drivers and areas of concern and
will be used in conjunction with police workload and staffing data to insure optimal
effectiveness and efficiency.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: In addition to the Police Overtime Reports
referenced in audit follow-up status of recommendation #7, CPD also reports overtime
use data in the monthly Executive Information Summary for use by commanders,
managers and supervisors. The newly created reports provide accurate and current data
for which management decisions can be made.
Finding 9: Current overtime categorization is not defined enough to allow the
department to conduct the most useful analysis possible.
Recommendation 9: CPD should review its categorization of incremental and
contingency overtime so that they align with the definitions in Procedure 12.825. It
should use these categories as the basis for its analysis going forward.
CPD Response: The Police Department will examine overtime categorization and make
revisions and improvements consistent with this finding. The miscellaneous category
will be deleted and timekeepers will record reasons for overtime according to specific
categorizations.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: CPD has revised their overtime
categorization. The miscellaneous category is no longer used, and a reimbursable
category has been added. CPD also combined categories such as meetings into one
(neighborhood, council, etc.). In total there are now four main categories: Contingency,
Court, Reimbursable Contingency and Increment. In addition, Procedure 12.825 has
been revised to reflect these changes. The revisions were consistent with the finding.
Supervision and Management of Outside Employment Extension of
Police Services Details
Finding 10: Very few officers are complying with Procedure 13.105, which requires
them to report details on their daily activity records, and few sergeants are initialing the
forms after review.
Recommendation 10: CPD should fully enforce CPD Procedure 13.105.
6CPD Response: The Police Department will revise this procedure so that it is consistent
with actual practice and necessity. The procedure will be revised and implemented
5/1/05.
IAD Note: While revising the procedure, IAD encourages CPD to strengthen the
requirement that officers report and give their supervisors full knowledge of the details
they work.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: Procedure 13.105, Reporting and
Evaluating Officer’s Activity, has been revised. CPD deleted the section in the procedure
that required officers to list details worked. According to Captain Gary Lee, Commander
Inspections Section, the detail availability is posted at the districts and an officer who is
interested in a detail signs his name on the sheet. The Detail Coordinator at the district
reviews the sheet and decides who will work the detail and circles the officer’s name.
The officer checks the sheet to see if he was selected to work the detail. The Detail
Coordinator enters the information into the computer system; this is how the details are
tracked. The automated system tracks the officer’s detail activity and is published each
day going seven days out. Supervisors can view the data which lists the date of the
detail, the hours to be worked, the name of the officer to work the detail, the name of the
employer the officer will be working for, and the address of the detail.
If an officer cannot work the detail or arrives late, then a change form has to be
completed by that officer. This exception report is utilized by CPD to aid in managing
off-duty details. According to Captain Lee, CPD has prosecuted officers for issues
related to off-duty details; although officers do not list their details on their time sheet
each day, by signing the sign up sheet they are held liable. In addition, it is the
responsibility of the Inspections Section to monitor off-duty details and in doing so they
generate a 100-hour monthly report and conduct a semi-annual 100-hour audit. Any
findings in the 100-hour monthly report are forwarded to the officer’s immediate
supervisor for investigation. The semi-annual 100-hour audit is done to ensure integrity,
consistency, and thoroughness in the officer’s unit of assignment response to the monthly
report. The intent of the audit is to assist management in evaluating officer compliance
with Procedure 19.140, Outside Employment. IAD obtained copies of the semi-annual
100-hour audits.
Finding 11: The audit found few documented cases where District Supervisors were
inspecting off-duty details as required by Procedure 19.140.
Recommendation 11: District Supervisors should begin conducting and recording off-
duty detail inspections. CPD should provide guidance as to how often these inspections
should be conducted and where a record of the inspection should be maintained.
CPD Response: Procedure 19.140 will be revised. Inspections Section will design and
implement an Outside Employment Detail Inspection Report. The new procedure will be
implemented 5/1/05.
7Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: Procedure 19.140 has been revised to
include that all Shift S upervisors are required to check a minimum of one outside
employment detail working in their district per shift. A new form 669 is completed and
forwarded to the Inspections Section to be maintained in their files. In addition,
Supervisors from the Inspections Section conduct monthly surprise inspections of off-duty
details. Supervisors are able to view online, the off-duty detail tracking system, where
their officers are located. The District Commander is responsible for ensuring that the
Supervisors are doing onsite checks of the off-duty details. The Inspections Section does
not know who is working each day and relies on the districts to complete this task.
According to Captain Gary Lee, Commander Inspections Section, Shift Supervisors are
sometimes unable to check a minimum of one off-duty detail per shift. Captain Gary Lee
explained that if the first-line supervisor is busy with other priorities, the reviewing of
off-duty details falls lower on their tasks of things to do. He believes that more first-line
supervisors would assist in alleviating this issue. IAD is satisfied the processes are in
place for Shift Supervisors to check one off-duty detail per shift; however, we recommend
that District Commander’s work with Shift Supervisors to ensure the task is completed.
(Note: IAD was informed that the Inspections Section contacted District Commanders
and found that more Supervisors were inspecting details than originally thought since the
Form 669 was being filed at the district and not forwarded to the Inspections Section.
The Inspections Section is now reminding Commanders to make sure all 669 Forms are
sent to them, and that details are inspected by first-line supervisors as time permits.)
Finding 12: A review of schedules for officers who work a significant amount of off-
duty detail detected violations not caught by the DCU (Detail Coordination Unit)
scheduling system.
Recommendation 12: CPD should routinely audit the schedules of officers working a
large amount of off-duty detail. It should request time sheets from the outside employer
to confirm that the information submitted to the DCU is accurate.
CPD Response: Inspections Section will conduct an audit every six months of 100 hours
Review Reports to insure they are being conducted properly and to insure appropriate
corrective/disciplinary action is being taken. The results of the first audit, for January-
June, 2005, will be presented to the Police Chief on or about July 15, 2005.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: A new automated system tracks the
officer’s detail activity and is published each day going seven days out. Supervisors can
view the data which lists the date of the detail, the hours to be worked, the name of the
officer to work the detail, the name of the employer the officer will be working for, and
the address of the detail. In addition, it is the responsibility of the Inspections Section to
monitor off-duty details, generate a 100-hour monthly report and conduct a semi-annual
100-hour audit. Any findings in the 100-hour monthly report are forwarded to the
officer’s immediate supervisor for investigation. The semi-annual 100-hour audit is done
to ensure integrity, consistency, and thoroughness in the officer’s unit of assignment
response to the monthly report. The intent of the audit is to assist CPD management in
evaluating officer compliance with Procedure 19.140, Outside Employment. IAD
8inquired if CPD receives any time sheets from the outside employer to confirm that the
information submitted to the DCU is accurate. According to Captain Gary Lee,
Commander Inspections Section, Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS) is the only employer
that DCU obtains payroll records from. However, this is one of CPD’s largest outside
employers. In December, for example, CPS utilized 287 details incorporating 1,123
detail hours. IAD reviewed several copies of the semi-annual 100-hour audits.
Finding 13: Discipline for violations of off-duty detail procedure is not being applied
uniformly.
Recommendation 13a: CPD should fully enforce Procedure 19.140. It should also
ensure that all officers are disciplined equitably.
Recommendation 13b: CPD should add a clause to Procedure 19.140 stating that
receiving payment from two employers for overlapping details is dishonest and criminal.
It will be considered a violation of “Section Five—Dishonesty” of the Manual of Rules
and Regulations and Disciplinary Process.”
Recommendation 13c: CPD should require officers being paid by two employers for
overlapping details to pay restitution to the employer who did not actually receive the
service.
Recommendation 13d: CPD should require approval by the Police Chief for any
deviation or exceptions to Procedure 19.140.
CPD Response: Inspections Section will conduct an audit every six months of outside
employment details to insure the 100 hours reviews are being conducted properly and
appropriate corrective/disciplinary action is being taken. The results of the first audit, for
January-June, 2005, will be presented to the Police Chief on or about July 15, 2005.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: The Inspections Section monitors off-duty
details and in doing so they generate a 100-hour monthly report and conduct a semi-
annual 100-hour audit. Any findings in the 100-hour monthly report are forwarded to
the officer’s immediate supervisor for investigation. The semi-annual 100-hour audit is
done to ensure integrity, consistency, and thoroughness in the officer’s unit of assignment
response to the monthly report. The intent of the audit is to assist CPD management in
evaluating officer compliance with Procedure 19.140, Outside Employment. IAD
obtained copies of the semi-annual 100-hour audits. In addition, Procedure 19.140,
Outside Employment, has been revised to include, the addition of the form 17DA, Report
of Detail Audit, which is for supervisors to use when reviewing outside employment. The
form is completed when a supervisor receives a report from the Inspections Section of an
officer who has worked in excess of 100 hours of overtime and outside employment within
a month, or is in violation of procedure 19.140. This form is routed to the Inspections
Section through the chain of command.
9Finding 14: CPD Procedure 19.140 allows officers on off-duty detail suspensions to
work City overtime. This procedure is not applied uniformly in all districts.
Recommendation 14: CPD should change Procedure 19.140 to forbid officers
suspended from off-duty detail from working City overtime during their suspension. If
the procedure is not changed, it should be enforced uniformly in every district.
CPD Response: The Inspections Section will insure compliance with existing procedure
via six month audits.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: The Inspections Section monitors off-duty
details and in doing so they generate a 100-hour monthly report and conduct a semi-
annual 100-hour audit. Any findings in the 100-hour monthly report are forwarded to
the officer’s immediate supervisor for investigation. The semi-annual 100-hour audit is
done to ensure integrity, consistency, and thoroughness in the officer’s unit of assignment
response to the monthly report. The intent of the audit is to assist CPD management in
evaluating officer compliance with Procedure 19.140, Outside Employment. IAD
obtained copies of the semi-annual 100-hour audits. Further, CPD does not concur with
the recommendation that officers in violation of the off-duty detail procedures also be
suspended from working City overtime during the suspension period, because it is
sometimes necessary for officers to work City overtime in order to insure that the police
mission is fulfilled. CPD also stated that officers working City overtime work under
more direct supervision than instances where they work an off-duty detail.
Finding 15: There is no standardized approach to conducting audits of officers who
generate a conflict report.
Recommendation 15: CPD should provide guidelines to supervisors conducting
investigations into possible off-duty detail conflicts. The supervisor should have some
means of verification independent of the officer (for example, employer records or CAD
logs) to determine whether the officer worked a detail in question.
CPD Response: There is a standardized format for auditing officers related to outside
employment details and the Department has taken steps to insure the format is properly
utilized by supervisors. The Department will insure the standardized format is followed
by conducting an audit every six months as described for findings 12 and 13.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: The Inspections Section monitors off-duty
details and in doing so they generate a 100-hour monthly report and conduct a semi-
annual 100-hour audit. Any findings in the 100-hour monthly report are forwarded to
the officer’s immediate supervisor for investigation. The semi-annual 100-hour audit is
done to ensure integrity, consistency, and thoroughness in the officer’s unit of assignment
response to the monthly report. The intent of the audit is to assist CPD management in
evaluating officer compliance with Procedure 19.140, Outside Employment. IAD
obtained copies of the semi-annual 100-hour audits. In addition, Procedure 19.140 has
been revised and forms 17DA and 17DC are now utilized to help monitor off-duty details.
10Further, an improved computerized tracking system is now in use where the supervisors
can see on-line seven days out where their officers are working on off-duty details.
Finding 16: There are off-duty detail compensation arrangements that deviate from that
set out in Policy 19.140.
Recommendation 16: CPD should require approval by the Police Chief for any
compensation other than that specified in the employer contract (for example, more or
less than the official rate or any non-monetary compensation).
CPD Response: CPD will revise Procedure 19.140 to provide more clarity on this issue.
The procedure will be revised 5/1/05.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: CPD revised Procedure 19.140, Outside
Employment, and added that a higher pay rate must be approved via the permit process
which was submitted through the chain of command for review and approval.
Finding 17: There is no standardized approach to conducting audits and evaluating the
performance of officers who work more than 100+ hours in off-duty details in a month.
Recommendation 17: CPD should standardize the procedure for conducting audits of
officers working more than 100+ hours per week. CPD should develop a matrix of
factors for review so that supervisors could consider various indicators of impaired
performance in the officer. Criteria could include attendance, accidents, ESLs, citizen
interactions or complaints, and performance criteria for an officer on that given beat, such
as M.U.T.T.s (traffic citations), CPIs, FIR Cards, arrests, offense reports made, cases
investigated and closed, warrants signed, crime scenes processed, or convictions. CPD
can determine what areas would be most appropriate depending on the nature of the
officer’s job.
CPD Response: There is a standardized format for auditing officers related to outside
employment details and the Department will take steps to insure the format is properly
utilized by supervisors. Inspections Section will conduct six month audits to insure
compliance.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: The Inspections Section monitors off-duty
details and in doing so they generate a 100-hour monthly report and conduct a semi-
annual 100-hour audit. Any findings in the 100-hour monthly report are forwarded to
the officer’s immediate supervisor for investigation. The semi-annual 100-hour audit is
done to ensure integrity, consistency, and thoroughness in the officer’s unit of assignment
response to the monthly report. The intent of the audit is to assist CPD management in
evaluating officer compliance with Procedure 19.140, Outside Employment. IAD
obtained copies of the semi-annual 100-hour audits. In addition Procedure 19.140 has
been revised and forms 17DA and 17DC are now utilized to help monitor off-duty details.
11Finding 18: The 16-hour limit is the only strict cap on the amount of hours an officer
can work. Officers who consistently work excessive amounts of overtime may be
compromising their own performance and creating a potential legal liability for the city.
Recommendation 18a: CPD should determine a maximum number of hours that can be
worked safely in a one-week and one-month period and implement an appropriate policy
regulating total work hours.
Recommendation 18b: CPD should conduct an annual review similar to the monthly
audits on the performance of any officer who pass a specific threshold of total hours
worked, including on-duty, City overtime, and off-duty details. By the provisions of the
current SERB ruling, 3200 hours (50 64-hour weeks) might be a reasonable threshold.
Recommendation 18c: CPD should post amounts of off-duty and City overtime worked
each month by every officer. The National Institute of Justice noted several departments
do this so that “overtime can be supervised by the officers themselves through peer
pressure.”
CPD Response: The SERB settlement agreement provides that 16 hours is the only
strict cap and review of an officer’s on duty performance may occur for working outside
employment above a specific threshold. The Police Department’s practices conform to
this agreement.
The SERB Agreement states,
“1. The Respondent [Police Department] agrees to revise existing Division Policy 19.140
to allow a maximum accumulation of hours worked in any combination of on-duty
and off-duty detail hours of 16 hours in one day. An employee found to be in
excess of these hours shall be subject to retrospective review for possible
disciplinary or corrective action.
2. The police division may review the on-duty work performance of any officer who
works greater than 64 combined hours of work for the city and work in off-duty
details within a regular work week (Sunday through Saturday), for the purpose of
determining whether the officer’s outside employment has had an adverse effect on
the officer’s performance in his official police duties.”
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: As stated in CPD’s response, the SERB
settlement agreement provides that 16 hours is the only strict cap and review of an
officer’s on-duty performance may occur for working outside employment above a
specific threshold. In addition, form 17DA has been developed specifically to focus
evaluation points to help determine if an officer’s off-duty detail time impacts his on-duty
performance.
Finding 19: The position of private detail coordinator can be used to prevent detection
of violation of Procedure 19.140.
12Recommendation 19: Details that are coordinated at the district should be coordinated
by the District Detail Coordinator. The private detail coordinator should be abolished
and all details not handled by the DCU should be reported through the District Detail
Coordinator.
CPD Response: The Police Department’s organizational structure processes, and
procedures are effective and sufficient to regulate outside employment. The Police
Department will insure this position is utilized effectively and efficiently. Private detail
coordinators are being phased out as all Department details become blanket details
coordinated by Department staff.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: Private detail coordinators are being
phased out. CPD’s Detail Coordinator will centrally coordinate all details. There were
51 private details in 2005, 46 in 2006, and 34 for 2007.
Finding 20: There is an opportunity to increase the effectiveness of police performance
by placing restrictions on outside employment details worked.
Recommendation 20a: CPD should ban the practice of shift splitting to accommodate
outside employment details.
Recommendation 20b: District Chiefs should review the routine use of leave to
accommodate outside employment details. District Detail Coordinators should attempt to
distribute details as widely as possible in order to prevent any particular officer
consistently being removed from his/her beat.
CPD Response: The Police Department’s procedures and policies conform to the SERB
outside employment settlement agreement. One measure of the Police Department’s
operational effectiveness is the 3.3 minute average response time for emergency calls for
service. The Police Department effectively matches personnel deployment with service
demand via its sound staffing plan. Outside employment has no effect on the
Department’s staffing plan and personnel deployment. Outside employment enhances
the Department’s personnel deployment by providing police presence that is paid for by
outside employers.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: The newly created overtime reports
coupled with appropriate staffing should alleviate this concern.
Finding 21: There are significant non-monetary costs to the City associated with off-
duty detail.
Recommendation 21: CPD should conduct a survey to identify why some officers
prefer working off-duty detail at straight time to City overtime at time and a half. It
should also identify incentives that would make City overtime more attractive than off-
duty detail.
13CPD Response: The Police Department provides outside employment/extension of
police service details to the community because the community requests this service.
Outside employment is a part of the collective bargaining agreement between the City
and FOP Lodge 69. The State Employee Relations Board (SERB) has rendered a
decision on the regulation of outside employment. The Police Department strictly
adheres to the SERB decision. The Police Department devotes the minimum staff
necessary to properly and efficiently regulate outside employment. These staff performs
functions and tasks in addition to those associated with the regulation of outside
employment.
Outside employment details, such as traffic control, theft detection, parking lot security,
etc., do more than simply put more officers in the field at certain locations. Traffic
control details actually benefit all citizens driving in that area. Theft detection or
shoplifting details reduce the calls for service and act as a deterrent to potential offenders.
Parking lot security suppresses thefts from autos and other criminal activity in the area.
All of these free on duty officers to provide service in other areas of the city and decrease
response time to calls for service.
The Police Department cannot unilaterally end and does not recommend ending outside
employment details. The community requests outside employment-extension of police
services and outside employment is a part of the collective bargaining agreement.
Outside employment details provide a service to the community at-large, effectively
reducing service demand and reducing city costs. By City Council Motion, passed
unanimously on October 17, 1995, the Cincinnati Police Department is not permitted to
charge an administrative fee to outside employers.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: CPD continues to provide outside
employment/extension of police service details in the community. CPD continues to
provide this employment within the parameters of the collective bargaining agreement
between the City of Cincinnati and FOP Lodge #69. CPD has reviewed the staffing
deployed to provide these services and according to Captain Lee, minimal staff performs
functions and tasks needed to administer the program.
Finding 22: The cost of administering off-duty detail is being paid by all taxpayers
rather than the companies ordering the services.
Recommendation 22a: CPD should annually determine the full costs associated with
administering the off-duty detail program. CPD should institute an administrative fee of
at least 10% to capture these costs.
Recommendation 22b: Funds from the administrative fee should be apportioned to the
departments incurring the associated costs. For example, CPD should be reimbursed for
personnel costs while the City’s self-insurance fund should be paid for workers’ comp
and legal liability costs.
CPD Response: All citizens derive benefits from officers working throughout the city,
in uniform, at outside employment details. These detail officers handle incidents at the
14detail locations which would otherwise generate calls for service for on duty officers.
Detail officers prevent illegal activity at detail locations and, in many cases, all around
the vicinity of the detail locations because the uniformed officer is visible to the public.
Preventing crime at detail locations positively affects all citizens at or near the detail
locations and reduces service demand for the City. In the event a detail officer makes an
arrest at the detail location related to the detail, the private employer pays the court time
compensation for the officer.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: An ordinance was passed on December
21, 2006 authorizing the City Manager to apply a service charge in the amount of $3.75
per service hour for the Cincinnati Police officers’ off-duty detail services, for the
purpose of offsetting the administration costs incurred by CPD for administering outside
detail services to various private entities. The ordinance was to take effect on March 1,
2007; however, on January 31, 2007 City Council repealed the ordinance, and the $3.75
charge will not be added to offset the administration costs.
Finding 23: Outside employers do not uniformly understand officers’ obligations at off-
duty details nor do they clearly understand their relationship to the City.
Recommendation 23a: CPD should standardize compensation for officers performing
off-duty detail and more clearly explaining the officer’s status in the employment
contract. An optimal model would be the New York City detail unit, which bills the
vendor for time worked and requires payment to be mailed in the officer’s name to the
DCU. The outside employer also mails 1099s for each officer to the DCU at the end of
the year.
Recommendation 23b: CPD should revise its contract to clearly specify the officer’s
ability to leave the detail post and respond to calls for service. The department should
also provide guidelines to the officers and employers about the circumstances in which
he/she would do this.
CPD Response: The Police Department will insure outside employers understand
officers’ obligations while working outside employment details.
Audit Follow-up Status of Recommendation: The forms utilized by CPD for working
outside employment details include: Cincinnati Police Department Outside Employment
Work Permit (form 668), the Cincinnati Police Department Acknowledgement by the
Secondary Employer (form 668A), Form 55 which describes detail cancellation and
signatures, and the Letter of Understanding, which lists compensation. A customer survey
was used in 2005 to measure the satisfaction of private employers with off-duty police
details. CPD proposes to issue another survey to their outside employers in 2007. As part
of this survey, CPD will include a question regarding the obligations of the off-duty
police details and City responsibilities.
15You can also read
